FEDERAL REPORTER. qualified electors of the state to vote for state and district officers, where their residence was not such as to authorize them to vote for county officers at the time and place of their offering to vote. Our government is founded on the elective franchise. The right to exercise this franchise is declared, defined, and guarantied by organic provisions superior to any of the departments of the government. The legislature cannot enlarge it or restrict it, and can only regulate it so far as their authority to do so is expressly, or by necessary implication, given in the constitution. Much less may the courts presume to restrict it by construction. On the contrary, the whole spirit of our institutions constrains the courts to give our organic provisions, on the subject of the enjoyment of the right of suffrage, such a construction as will permit the most liberal exercise of this supreme right which is at all reasonably consistent with the terms of those provisions. From a very careful consideration of the subject, I am of the opinion that, for all that is shown in this bill of information, said J. P. Kramer was entitled to vote at the time and place mentioned, and that the motion should be sustained; and it is so ordered.
OBERTEUFFER and others v. II!RwooD, and PETIT, Garnishee.
(District Court, n. Minnesota. --.1881.) 1.
GARNIsmmNT-INTERROGATION OF GARNISHEE.
A garnishee may be required to answer questions tending to show that he was party to a fraudulent assignment by the defendant in the suit.-[En.
NELSON, D. J. The garnishee declines to answer certain questions, under the advice of his counsel, for the reason "that the line of inquiry has nothing to do with garnishee proceedings. " and the design is "to furnish infOl'mation bearing on other litigation." The object of the garnishee proceedings is to reach prop-
OBERTEUFFER V. HARWOOD.
erty of the debtor. It is ancillary to the original suit, and is a mode of attaching property to secure any judgment obtained against the principal defendant. A response is required to all questions tending to draw out factB that would disclose property in the possession of the garnishee which might render him liable. To this extent the inquiry may go. Whether the questions propounded are proper or not must depend upon the circumstances of each case, and no particular rules, universally applicable, can be laid down. Every question tending to further the object of the examination is material and proper. The examination in this case shows a general assignment to the garnishee by the defendant for the benefit of creditors, and he expresses the opinion that he «had at the time of the service of the garnishee summons no property of the defendant in my possession or under my control." SU,ch general answer is not -the extent to which inquiry may go with reference to such assignment. The plaintiffs are entitled to answers to all questions which might show the garnishee a party to a fraudulent assignment. If upon "full disclosure" it should appear that the garnishee had no property, money, or effects of the defendant in his possession or control, then, if the plaintiffs desire to attack the assignment for the reason that, in their opinion, it is void, they must pursue the course pointed out in section 174,p. 735, Young's Statutes of Minnesota. The garnishee must answer the interrogatories. See Drake on Attachments, § 650, and authorities cited.
(District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. April 21, 1881.)
1. HANDS ON (JABGO. STEAM-BoAT -
COMPLETION 011' VOi'AGE -
Libellants were employed as hands on a steam-boat, on a trip from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati and back. They had nothing to do with the navigation of the boat, but the handling of the cargo was part of their employment. Held, that they had no right to quit the boat as 800n as she was fastened to the wharf at Pittsburgh, but that it was their duty to remain and assist in unloading her cargo.
Held, further, that the r8lpandents could deduct from libellants' wages the reasonable sums necessarilf paid for the discharge hf such cargo.
PRACTICE-PAYMENT TO MAnSHAL-l'AYMENT INTO CoURT-VOST&.
In Albert York Smith, for libellant. Isaac S. Van Voorhis, contra. ACHESON, D. J. The amount in controversy here is small. but to ihe libellants who sue for their wages the matter is of .consequence. Moreover, the principle involved is important. 'The case, therefore, deserves and has received careful consideration. The better opinion seems to be that unless there is -some express or implied agreement or established usage to dispense with their further services, seamen are bound to remain with the ship upon the completion of the voyage and assist in the delivery of her cargo, if made in a reasonable time. 1 Conk. Adm. 131; Dixon v. The Cyrus, 2 Pet. Adm. 413; Clolltman v. Tunison, 1 Sumn. 377. Here, there were no shipping articles or express contract. The libellants were employed as hands on the steam-boat Hudson, on a trip from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati and back. They had nothing to do with the navigation of the boat, but the handling of the cargo was part of their employment. Under ihe evidence, I think, they had no right to quit the boat as :soon as she was fastened to the wharf at Pittsburgh, but that it was their duty to assist in unloading her. This they ob·